DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 467 424 SP 040 948

AUTHOR Allen, Ricky Lee TITLE Pedagogy of the Oppressor: What Was Freire's Theory for Transforming the Privileged and Powerful? PUB DATE 2002-04-02 NOTE 46p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 1-5, 2002). PUB TYPE Opinion Papers (120) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education; *Power Structure; Racial Identification; *Social Change; *Social Influences IDENTIFIERS Critical Pedagogy; *Freire (Paulo); Identity Formation; *Oppression

ABSTRACT This conceptual analysis discusses how Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" theorizes the transformation of the oppressor. This work has played a major role in the creation, maintenance, and reinvigoration of critical pedagogy. The paper describes Freire's theory for transforming the oppressor and critically assesses his theory. Freire offers a general theory for transforming a somewhat abstract oppressor, thus leaving it up to the reader to decide whether to be the oppressor or the oppressed. To address this issue, the paper examines "Black Feminist Thought" by Patricia Hill Collins for a compatible yet distinct theory of how to engage in critical dialogues given the varied intersectionality of identities. It utilizes Collins' theory to problematize Freire and construct a synthesis called pedagogy of the oppressor (a variant of critical pedagogy that emphasizes the radical task of identifying as the oppressor in order to divet oneself of one's complicity with dehumanization and form solidarity with the relatively oppressed). Both Freire and Collins believe that the knowledge necessary for liberating oppressed-oppressor relationships must come from the oppressed as they speak truth to power. Both retain a sense of the reality of hierarchical power in their dialogical theories, differing in their definitions of the oppressed. (Contains 19 references.)(SM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Pedagogy of the Oppressor 1

Running Head: PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSOR

Pedagogy of the Oppressor: What was Freire' s Theory for. Transforming the Privileged

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS and Powerful? BEEN GRANTED BY

kickiLae/Cm

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1

Ricky Lee Allen

The University of New Mexico

Paper Presentation

Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association

April 2, 2002

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this Author' s Address document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. The University of New Mexico College of Education Department of Language, Literacy, & Sociocultural Studies Hokona Hall, Room 209-Zuni Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1231 (505)277-7247 rlallen @unm.edu

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Pedagogy of the Oppressor2

Pedagogy of the Oppressor: What was Freire's Theory for Transforming the Privileged and Powerful?

I first read Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1994. I can remember that I felt like Freire was saying things that I had long felt, although at a somewhat unconscious level. I felt as though Freire gave me a new language for describing the unjustness of society and articulating my desires for better world. Over the next few years, Pedagogy of the Oppressed became foundational to my views onthe relation between teaching, schooling, and social change.

More recently, however, a different memory of my initial reading of the text has emerged in my consciousness. I can also now remember that when I first read Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I imagined myself as "the oppressed" within the narrative. As a working-class white student, the first of my family lineage to go to college, I could relate to Freire's ideas about educational hegemony and liberatory desires. But, Inevertheless sensed an interpretive conflict in that I conjured this up in my head, me as the oppressed, even though, deep down, I figured that I was not a member of theoppressed group to whom Freire was referring. Ambivalence ran through my mind in the form of a question:

"Am I the oppressed or the oppressor?" I had neither critical awareness nor a depth of

3 Pedagogy of the Oppressor3 knowledge about such complexities at that time. Having spent the last few years trying to unlearn my oppressive tendencies, particularly around my whiteness, Ihave decided to revisit Pedagogy of the Oppressed and examine the theoretical roots of the feelings it stirred in me. This chapter represents that return visit. During this visit, I will delve into

Freire's directness and vagueness on the subject of the oppressed-oppressor dynamic. In particular, I will focus on the oppressor aspect of his text since that is the part that I seemed to have completely ignored in 1994.

In addition to my own personal experience, I have come to realize that many other whites read the text and imagine themselves as Freire's oppressed. Having taught the book numerous times and having talked to colleagues who also use the text in their classes, a typical classroom pattern seems to emerge when teaching it in the relatively privileged spaces of U.S. university classrooms. After a week or two of discussion, the class is transformed into a delusional space where everyone is the oppressed and no one is the oppressor. Gone is any sense of the relativity of oppression within globally structured hierarchies. In this "critical" pedagogical milieu, the working-class white male fantasizes himself as being just as oppressed as anyone else. And, if someonetries to challenge his claim, the working-class white male's position is likely tobe defended by problematic postmodern statements like "We can't value one form of oppression more than anotheroppression is simply oppression."

4 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 4

But oppression is not simply oppression. To make such a claim denies the reality of hierarchies, relationality, and agency that makes differential oppression among multiple identities a social fact. Certainly, no one truly believes that the oppression of

Third World women, at the structural level, is the equivalent of the oppression of white workers in the U.S. The difficulty then is not about the lack of knowledge that the white working class has of those who face greater structural oppression. Instead, the problem is more about the white working class, and white middle class, for that matter, not being able to deal positively and critically with their own betwixt and between status.

Working-class whites are more likely to accept their status as "the oppressed" relative to the white middle class than they are to accept their status as "the oppressor" of people of color. Various scholars of critical pedagogy have recognized the problem that the multiplicity of hierarchies and identities creates for the formation of dialogical solidarity

(Giroux,1992;Leonardo,2000;McLaren,1997).For example, Peter McLaren states:

Difference is always a product of history, culture, power, and ideology. Differences occurbetweenandamonggroups and must be understood in terms of the specificity of their production(1997, p. 126).

McLaren' s comments suggest that we need to dig deeper into the concrete identity relationships that are present in our classrooms. We need to understand their spatial and temporal construction and how identities are differentially privileged and disprivileged in the production process. But, critical pedagogy, historically speaking, has tended not to pay direct attention to the concrete specificities of identity, focusing instead on more

5 Pedagogy of the Oppressor5 abstract notions of theory. In addition, critical pedagogy, which is rooted in the largely

Marxist thinking of critical theory, employs a class-first and class-last analysis, more often than not, that acts as a container for race and gender. Neither race nor gender is allowed to hold theoretical dominance over class. This has led some to criticize critical pedagogy for its white and male identity politics (Ellsworth, 1989; Ladson-Billings,

1997). Not to mention that it has been strategically and politically limiting in that it has blocked the formation of broad-based solidarity through the stifling of crucial dialogues.

Instead, false forms of solidarity have been formed through the repression of further critique, such as on the issue of white supremacy, which were seen by those with relative power and privilege as a threat to solidarity against the outside oppressor, thatis, the bourgeoisie, leaving the "oppressor within" unchallenged.

Along a similar line, critical pedagogy is now facing another paradigmatic dilemma. The field of multiculturalism is beginning to turn its gaze, albeit it very slowly, towards the oppressor and (temporarily) away from the oppressed. This turn is a challenge for critical pedagogists because critical pedagogy was established on the premise of privileging the knowledge and desires of oppressed groups in order to enable their empowerment and create social transformation (Freire, 1970/1993). The new political imperative, however, is to foster a sense of radical agency among those representing groups that are the oppressor, including those who are critical pedagogists.

For example, critical whiteness studies examines the construction of white racial identity 6 Pedagogy of the Oppressor6

(Jacobson, 1998; Lipsitz, 1998; McIntosh, 1997; McIntyre, 1997; McLaren, 1997;

Roediger, 1999; Tatum, 1997) and the transformation and/or abolition of whitenessas an

oppressive social structure (Garvey & Ignatiev, 1997; Giroux, 1997). Pedagogies based on this framework seek to make whites morally and politically accountable for the

unearned power and privilege that they receive as members of the white race. In another example, critical masculinity studies employs a similar framework to work against the gendered systems that give men unearned power and privilege (Kimmel, 1987). It seeks to enlist men as active agents who challenge the sexism of other men.

Given these significant and potentially empowering paradigmatic developments, the field of critical pedagogy needs to rethink the problem of social identity. It needs to consider a paradigm of the oppressed-oppressor relationship that is more complex than some vague notion of "the people" versus the bourgeoisie (Freire, 1970/1993) and less reactionary than class-only or class-first/last analyses. In order to construct a new theory of critical pedagogy that takes these considerations to heart, we first need to identify and understand the theory for transforming the oppressor that already exists in critical pedagogy. Therefore, this chapter is a conceptual analysis that discusses how Pedagogy of the Oppressed theorizes the transformation of the "oppressor." Freire does not say in explicit terms that he is offering a theory for transforming the oppressor, but it is there.

One of the primary goals of this chapter is to bring this theory into relief so that we might examine it and learn from it. Arguably the most famous bookon education in the world,

7 Pedagogy of the Oppressor7

Pedagogy of the Oppressor has played a major part in the creation, maintenance, and, reinvigoration of critical pedagogy over the last several decades.. In fact, it is hard to imagine critical pedagogy without the existence of this text. In Pedagogy of the

Oppressed, Paulo Freire writes at length on the different roles to be played by the oppressed and oppressor in the struggle for liberation. HoweVer, readers, particularly those that I have encountered, seem to pay little attention to what Freire says about the oppressor and instead limit their focus on what he says about the oppressed. This selectiveness results in what I believe to be problematic and disempowering understandings of Freire's text, especially when the readers have relative social power and privilege, yet wish to see themselves as Freire's oppressed and not as the oppressor.

Thus, in the relatively privileged university classrooms of the U.S., much of what Freire says about the oppressor is regularly overlooked as students and teachers turn a blind eye towards any possibility of a critical examination of their own power and privilege.

Once I have spelled out Freire's theory for transforming the oppressor, I will move on to a critical assessment of his theory. As we will see, Freire offers a general theory for transforming a somewhat abstract "oppressor," thus leaving it up to the reader to decide whether to be the oppressor or the oppressed. But, in the real world, this openness of choice can become very problematic, if not just another avenue for those of oppressor groups to reassert their power by claiming to be equally oppressed or even more oppressed than other groups. So, the critical question is "How does one know 8 Pedagogy of the Oppressor8

when one is the oppressed and when one is the oppressor in a given dialogical relation?"

To address this omission in Freire' s text, I will turn to what I see as another foundational text, Patricia Hill Collins' Black Feminist Thought, for a compatible yet distinct theory of

how to engage in critical dialogues given the varied intersectionality of identities, which occur, nonetheless, within social hierarchies. I will utilize Collins' theory to

problematize Freire and construct a synthesis that I term a pedagogy of the oppressor, which is a variant of critical pedagogy that emphasizes the radical task of identifying as the oppressor in order to divest oneself of one's complicity with dehumanization and to form solidarity with the relatively oppressed.

Freire' s Theory for Transforming the Oppressor

Utilizing a mix of Marxist thought and Christian theology, Freire begins

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by considering the ethical dilemma of taking action against oppression. He argues that the problem of oppression cannot be resolved without also resolving the problem of humanization. In other words, radical ethicists need to consider more than the overthrow of oppression, but also the replacement of oppression with humanization, which I take to mean a condition where love, and not violence, reigns. It would be tragic, Freire contends, for the oppressed to simply become like the oppressor in the process of eliminating their oppressive circumstances, for the oppressor is a bad model of what it means to be human. Furthermore, he argues that the oppressed, as a

9 Pedagogy of the Oppressor9 collective entity, are the only ones who can save humankind because the oppressors are too involved in everyday violence.

Although the situation of oppression is a dehumanized and dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and those whom they oppress, it is the latter who must, from their stifled humanity, wage for both the struggle for a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, is unable to lead this struggle (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 29).

To avoid modeling the oppressor, the oppressed must act out of love for, and not fear of, others. The oppressed can restore humanity to the oppressors by combining their

"radical love" with collective efforts to usurp the oppressor' s power to oppress. Whether

through cultural or militaristic revolution, the oppressed show their love to the oppressor by breaking him/her free from his/her self-imposed entrapment in the cycle of

dehumanization.' Since power is a structural and not an individualistic phenomenon, the oppressed must work for widescale social transformation in order to achieve humanization for all. Freire's pedagogy of the oppressed is a type of self-determination

theory whereby the oppressed are to become templates of an integrated humanity as they organize and implement their collective emancipatory power. This philosophy is at the

heart of much of critical pedagogy.

I Freire uses only male pronouns in Pedagogy of the Oppressor. I am choosing to use both male and female pronouns in my own writing because I wish to reflect the idea that both men and women can be the oppressor. However, I have chosen to put "he" first so as to indicate the males are more likely to be in the oppressor position than females given the global nature of patriarchy.

10 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 10

But outside of the field of vision of many readers, Freire also provides critical

educators with a pedagogy for transforming the oppressor. Early on in the text, Freire

establishes the primary differences between the oppressed and the oppressor, differences

that have important pedagogical implications. One of the major differences is that the

oppressor is not oppressed. This seems to be stating the obvious, but it is commonplace

to hear folks say that the oppressor is also oppressed by his/her functional role in the

system of oppression. Yet, for Freire there is a distinction to be made between

oppression and dehumanization; he uses these two terms as a dialectical kinship, not as

synonyms.

Dehumanization, which marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen, but also (though in a different way) those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 26).

To my mind' s eye, no where in the text does he explicitly say, or even suggest, that the oppressors are themselves oppressed. However, he does explicitly say that "(a)s the oppressors dehumanize others and violate their rights, they themselves become dehumanized" (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 38). Freire seems to suggest that although the daily process of oppression dehumanizes both oppressor and oppressed, it oppresses only the oppressed. The oppressors are dehumanized because their oppressive mentalities prevent them from truly loving the Other. They walk through the world beholden to unfounded fears that they have created for themselves, unable to truly live. This state of unconsciousness about their own dehumanization, however, does not oppress them Pedagogy of the Oppressor 11

because they receive social power and privilege as a result of their dehumanizing efforts.

Absent these linguistic distinctions, the signifiers "oppressed" and "oppressor" lose all

. meaning and become alarmingly conflated. Freire, rather assertively, grounds his theory,

and for that matter, most of his scholarly work, in his oppressionhumanization

dialectic.

Before discussing the process of transforming the oppressor, it is crucial to first

grasp the ontological state of being of the oppressor, as described from the vantage point

of the oppressed. On this note, Freire articulates in detail many of the most salient

characteristics comprising an oppressor identity. Continuing with the theme of

de/humanization, Freire contends that oppressors dehumanize Others and themselves by

turning the world into a place for the sustainment of their false consciousness.

Oppressors accomplish this by defining humanity in their own image.

Humanity is a "thing," and they possess it as an exclusive right, as inherited property. To the oppressor consciousness, the humanization of the "others," of the people, appears not as the pursuit of full humanity, but as subversion (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 41).

The oppressor's identity becomes synonymous with the word "human." The oppressor

does not see, or does not wish to reveal, the cultural particularities of their own state of

being. Instead, the subjectivity of the oppressor is presented as a universal standard of

what it means to be civil, educated, and human.

12 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 12

Through their inappropriately privileged structural status, oppressors are

empowered to construct the world through their violent definition of humanity, which is

violent in the sense that it creates the ideological conditions for the dehumanization of

Others. Plus, it systematizes the conditions for the social reproduction of oppression by

encoding the subjectivity of the oppressors in a way that blinds them to their own violent

environment, leaving them comfortably addicted to their situation within it all. For

Freire (1970/1993),

This violence, as a process, is perpetuated from generation to generation of oppressors, who become its heirs and are shaped in its climate. This climate creates in the oppressor a strongly possessive consciousnesspossessive of the world and of men and women...The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creations of people, people themselves, timeeverything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal (p. 40).

The oppressor's definition of humanity scripts an imperialistic mentality that seeks to position and preserve Others into a denigrated social relation, one that functions to maintain the unjust status and false communing of the oppressor. Freire paints a picture that leads me to imagine the oppressor's state of mind as a form of mental dysfunction, which paradoxically is a necessary psycho-social condition in order foran oppressor to be seen as sane by others in the oppressor group. Freire implies this point when hesays,

"One of the characteristics of the oppressor consciousness and its necrophilic view of the world is thus sadism" (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 41). The oppressor turns the other into inanimate objects, rendering their death as human subjects and producers of

13 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 13

emancipatory knowledge. Rather than seeking out the life and love to be found in a

critical consciousness, oppressors desire the death of truth, and they actively, or even consciously, reproduce this same desire in other oppressors, as well as many of the oppressed.

Given that oppressors have constructed the standards of humanity from their own particularities; oppressors believe that critiques of their so-called standards are threats to civilization itself, such as when neoconservatives like Lynne V. Cheney make the claim that multiculturalism will ruin Western civilization (Giroux, 1992; McLaren, 1997). This phenomenon is particularly evident when the oppressed publicly deconstruct the unearned power and privilege of the oppressed. Rather than believing that what the oppressed are telling them is true, the oppressors instead choose to dismiss the knowledge claims of the oppressed as a means to protect their delusional sense of themselves and the world.

The oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having more as a privilege which dehumanizes others and themselves. They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a possessing class, they suffocate in their own possessions' and no longer are; they merely have. For them, having more is an inalienable right, a right they acquired through their own "effort," with their "courage to take risks." (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 41)

In fact, it is safe to say that the oppressors see the condition of their own privilege as evidence of an already existing civilized society. Civilization would not exist, or so the

14 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 14

oppressors' logic goes, were it not for their, or their ancestors', ingenuity, sacrifice, and

leadership.

Furthermore, through the moral distortion of their false consciousness,

oppressors, without fail, blame the oppressed for their own victimization. Rather than

being accountable for the lead role that they play in an oppressive totality, oppressors

project their own pathology onto the oppressed. The oppressors' projection lens inverts

reality by turning the oppressed into the cause of most, if not all, social ills, thus

presenting the oppressors with a slick alibi that slyly diverts suspicion away from

themselves. This type of trick photography allows oppressors to beat the rap time and

time again. Freire (1970/1993) describes the oppressor's upside-down rationale as follows:

The oppressed are regarded as the pathology of the healthy society, which must therefore adjust these "incompetent and lazy" folk to its own patterns by changing their. mentality. These marginals need to be "integrated," "incorporated" into the healthy society that they have "forsaken." (p. 55)

Oppressors are able to cement this illusion by constructing myths that plaster over the dehumanizing framework that lies deep within historical and contemporary social relations. The construction of powerful myths is a crucial feature for establishing a system of oppression for they not only act to confuse the oppressed but also the oppressor, although in different ways. In other words, the oppressors' myths function as a means of hegemonic psychological control. The oppressed are more likely to see and Pedagogy of the Oppressor 15 experience the contradictions of dominant myths. However, the myths have a built in safety mechanism in that they function as a surveillor of counter-hegemonic knowledge claims. Invested in their myths and backed by institutional and ideological authority, oppressors establish a normative order to truth telling and sensemaking that excludes the oppressed to the point of making those who speak out appear as if they are irrational or emotional.

The desire for conquest (or rather the necessity of conquest) is at all times present in antidialogical action. To this end, the oppressors attempt to destroy in the oppressed their quality as "considerers" of the world. Since the oppressors cannot totally achieve this destruction, they must mythicize the world (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 121).

Freire states_that many of the most damaging myths are distortions of the seemingly democratic ideas of a free society, an open job market, and the respect for human rights.

These democratic ideals become twisted into damaging myths when oppressors act asif these conditions have already been achieved, and not as if they are desired goals yet tobe attained in the name of social justice. Oppressors will even include themselves asthe primary agents of democratic change within these mythological narratives.

All of this projection of blame and creation of myth has psychological

consequences for the oppressor. For example, projection anddiversion manifests itself in

the oppressor as guilt. At deep levels in the oppressor's psyche, he/she repressesthat

which he/she really knowsthat the world is unjust, that he/she receives unearned

benefits, that he/she plays an active role in oppression by not doing anything to change it. 16, Pedagogy of the Oppressor 16

But rather than dealing with these repressed emotions in positive and radical ways, oppressors often resort to resolving their guilt through acts of generosity, which Freire sees as merely alibis for further dehumanization.

In order to have the continued opportunity to express their "generosity," the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this "generosity," which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. That is why the dispensers of false generosity become desperate at the slightest threat to its source (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 26).

I take Freire to mean that the oppressor needs to do more than the occasional act of so- called "kindness." Instead, he/she needs to devote his/her efforts to the abolishment of the system of oppression that privileges the oppressor as the one who is in a position to be "generous."

However, moving oppressors toward a critical consciousness is a difficult pedagogical task since oppressors will unify to eliminate challenges to their position in the world. In the classroom or other educational contexts, this behavior of oppressors seeks to stifle discourses that have the potential to release them from their dehumanizing status. The newly initiated critical educator or cultural worker who has taken up the task of transforming the oppressor quickly learns of the strong kinship among those in the oppressor group, a kinship that previously may not have been apparent.

The only harmony which is viable and demonstrable is that found among the oppressors themselves. Although they may diverge and upon occasion even clash over group interests, they unite immediately at a threat to the class (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 125). 17. Pedagogy of the Oppressor 17

As Freire indicates, harmony among the oppressed is less earnest than amongthe oppressor. This difference in affect is the result of severalfactors, one of which being the divide and conquer strategy of the oppressor. Whether consciously or not,the oppressor actively works on a daily basis to "weaken theoppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them" (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 122). Inshort, oppressors are much more deeply invested in their identitiesthan we may realize. They grip with tight fists and sweaty palms the discursive facades that mask theirguilt and veil their attempts to remain content about a world that they know is warped. Not surprisingly, then, critical dialogical encounters with oppressors are morelikely to be emotional rather than rational affairs.

Nevertheless, Freire seems to remain very hopeful that oppressors can be transformed. In fact, his theory of liberation is in part based on the assumptionthat the oppressor can be liberated and humanized by the radical loveof the oppressed.

Moreover, the humanization of the oppressor is essential for the fulfillmentof a utopian

social transformation that is truly anti-oppressive, as all humans, not justthe oppressed,

are included within Freire's vision. But despite the greathopefulness exhibited by his

inclusion of the oppressor in his plan, he certainly does not seem naive aboutthe

tremendous difficulty of transforming the oppressor. Capturing the high degreeof

change needed for an oppressor to be in actual solidarity with the oppressed,Freire

(1970/1993) proclaims, "Conversion to the people requires a profound rebirth" (p.43). 18 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 18

Thus, Freire posits an identity transformation process that is less about pedagogical

methods and more about moral, ethical, and political hurdles in the developmental progress toward establishing radical alliances. Prior to rebirth, oppressors deny that they are the oppressors. They may acknowledge that oppression exists or that they are members of a privileged group, but that is not the same thing as taking ownership of the signifier "oppressor." As Freire (1970/1993) says, "Class conflict is another concept which upsets the oppressors, since they do not wish to consider themselves an oppressive class" (p. 124). The implication is that the first step is for the oppressor to accept that they are in fact the oppressor. In other words, it is not that the oppressor does not see class conflict, but that he/she does not want to accept his/her own role in it. Freire cautions, however, that this first step is far from an endpoint, for oppressors who accept their oppressor identity can still act as oppressors.

Discovering himself to be an oppressor may cause considerable anguish, but it does not necessarily lead to solidarity with the oppressed (p. 31).

Words ring hollow for Freire if not accompanied by new ways of living, acting, and thinking in the world. A long path of un/learning awaits the oppressor who truly wishes to gain the trust of the oppressed.

The process of rebirth is based upon the achievement of solidarity with the oppressed. Achieving solidarity requires that oppressors must tangibly demonstrate their solidarity with the oppressed. For Freire, it is the achievement of solidarity that validates

1 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 19 the true transformation of the oppressor. Anything short of true solidarity marks the oppressor as still being invested in old ways, and old identities. The oppressor' s transformation cannot then be evaluated by the oppressor himself/herself, but by the oppressed who are themselves decolonized. One obstacle to the achievement of solidarity is that oppressors enter the process of humanization with denigrating and distorted myths about the oppressed. Freire (1970/1993) states that the oppressors who join with the oppressed "almost always bring with them the marks of their origin: their prejudices and their deformations, which include a lack of confidence in the people' s ability to think, to want, and to know" (p. 42). As beings whose consciousnesses have been encrypted by their experiential position of power and privilege, oppressors must learn how their group has traumatized the oppressed and how this has shaped their own problematic sense of self and Other.' The oppressor must go through an extensive educational process of deconstructing these dehumanizing myths and learning to see the world anew through a "critical consciousness." The oppressor must become awake to the realities of oppression, their functional role within it, and the falsehood of their prior sense of self.

2 1 would also add that the oppressor needs to learn how the oppressed have resisted against and coped with the system of oppression.

2 0 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 20

The gaining of a critical consciousness must correspond to a new forms of behavior and action that clearly demonstrate love for the oppressed, a love that is actually felt by the oppressed. As Freire (1970/1993) urges,

The oppressor is solidary with the oppressed only when he stops regarding the oppressed as an abstract category and sees them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their laborwhen he stops making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love...To affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free, and yet to do nothing tangible to make this affirmation a reality, is a farce (pp. 31-32).

This is the beginning of critical consciousness for the oppressor when he/she starts to actually believe the knowledge claims of the oppressed and decides to become politically and morally aligned with them. Freire (1970/1993) suggests that for the oppressor to demonstrate their solidarity they must become active agents who work against the structure of oppression and risk retaliation from other members of the oppressor group, rather than continuing to passively receive the benefits and comforts of privilege.

Solidarity requires that one enter into the situation of those with whom one is solidary; it is a radical posture. If what characterizes the oppressed is their subordination to the consciousness of the master, as Hegel affirms, true solidarity with the oppressed means fighting at their side to transform the objective reality which has made them these "beings for another." (p. 31) Pedagogy of the Oppressor 21

By using the term "situation," I take Freire to mean that the oppressor mustplace him/herself as one who opposes the system of oppression.' This movelocates the reborn oppressor into an agent against the ideologicaland material dominance of his/her own group.' In a word, the oppressor must become a "traitor" to his/her identity group in order to move towards humanization. In this phase of rebirth, the oppressoris actively engaged in struggle and his/her presence is welcomed by the oppressed, or asFreire says above, the oppressor is "fighting'at their side." I infer from Freire's wordsthat an oppressor who claims to be on the side of the oppressed,but is not actually welcomed by the oppressed, has not had a rebirth of consciousness.

An oppressor who is not welcomed by the oppressed, at a grouplevel, even as he/she claims to be fighting for the oppressed is merely practicing aform of paternalism born out of disbelief in the oppressed. This leads to another pedagogical concernfor the rebirth of the oppressor. Oppressors who have been reborn must have trustin the oppressed.

A real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people,which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favorwithout that trust (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 42).

3 One of the signs of privilege for the oppressor is that he/she can choose to place himself/herselfagainst oppression. And, this is something that the reborn oppressor must always be cognizant of.The oppressed cannot make such a choice due to how their social identities situate them in thelarger system. 4I will continue to use the term "oppressor" to describe the person or persons who have been transformed. Those of the oppressor group will always be the oppressor until the oppressor group nolonger exists as a functional and hierarchical state of being. I will, however, use the term "reborn oppressor" to indicatethe difference between those who have achieved or are truly attempting to achieve solidarity with the oppressed and those who are still unconscious to their oppressor identity.

22 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 22

The message here is clear: the oppressor should be willing to follow the lead established by the oppressed since it was their knowledge and love that actually liberated the oppressor. Oppressors, due to their relative power and privilege, can oftentimes gain a leadership role, and often do so because they have learned that this is what one does as a form of entitlement. However, oppressors have the least to lose if the struggle fails, thus

they should demonstrate their trust in the leadership of the oppressed, as it is the

oppressed who have the most to lose. As an aside to this examination of Freire's text, I

have noticed that this lack of trust in the oppressed is often present among some critical

pedagogists who come from oppressor groups. Unfortunately,-they tend to be too quick

to invoke the concept of hegemony as a means of explaining away their own ideological

conflicts with the oppressed. For example, I have heard numerous white criticalists

dismiss the race-focus of people of color. The white criticalist in this scenario believes

that capitalist hegemony creates a type of false consciousness among people of color that

is race-focused and class-blind. In other words, people of color are being blamed for the

lack of unity necessary for the white criticalisf s vision of a global proletariat revolt.

Freire's words indicate to me that white criticalists ought to demonstrate their trust of

people of color by engaging in their struggle against white supremacy, and doing it

vigorously and whole-heartedly before one is in a position to question the class

consciousness of people of color. Besides, no group has assimilated more to capitalism

93 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 23 than white folks. Moreover, people of color are the least assimilated tocapitalism, and may be more against economic injustice than thewhite criticalist thinks. Thus, the high level of scrutiny placed on people of color by some white criticalists is causefor concern.

"Trust" means that the oppressor believes in, not blindly, but situationally and strategically, the ontology, epistemology, and axiology of the oppressed.

The process of rebirth for the oppressor does not stop here. There areon-going moral and ethical issues that must continually be addressed since, afterall, the oppressor does not stop being a member of the oppressor group simply because they havebeen reborn to the oppressed. Social identities are structural features and one canonly leave the implications of group membership when the structures themselves aretransformed.

In the meantime, privileges and disprivileges are still incurred depending onhow one is

socially identified as a member of the oppressor or oppressed group. ForFreire, the

process of being reborn is a perpetual attempt to become morefully human in a system

that prematurely identifies members of the oppressor group as already human.In order

for the oppressor to continue to become human, Freire (1970/1993) suggeststhat they

must gain consistency in their disdain for oppressionand love of humanity when he says,

Those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly. This conversion is so radical as not to allow ofambiguous behavior. To affirm this commitment but to consider oneself the proprietorof revolutionary wisdomwhich must then be given to (or imposed on) the peopleis to retain the old ways. The man or woman who proclaims devotion to the cause of liberation yet is unable to enter into communion with the people,

24 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 24

whom he or she continues to regard as totally ignorant, is grievously self- deceived (p. 43).

Oppressors can only grow as radicals through close moral, spiritual, and ideological comradeship with the oppressed. And, as Freire indicates, self-reflexive examination is never ending, for the oppressor is always "at risk" of falling back into the normative ways of the oppressor group. Since the oppressor exists in a world that privileges the oppressor identity, even reborn oppressors will continue to experience the world as the oppressor in various moments. This differential experience constructs blindspots in the oppressor's consciousness that will need further transformation. Through educational dialogues with the more decolonized of the oppressed, or even other reborn oppressors who are more experienced, a critical pedagogy can play a major role in liberatory struggles for humanization.

Although the oppressor can be transformed through critical dialogue with the oppressed, we must be more specific about the dynamics of this type of intercultural

communication, particularly as it occurs in educational settings. Cross-cultural dialogue

between oppressor and oppressed is extremely difficult since the oppressor's voice

sounds out as the standard of sonic normalcy and cognitive rationality, when in fact it is

actually marked through and through with privileged positionality and unwarranted

social entitlement. Moreover, the oppressor has learned to rely upon various mythologies

to hide this fact and shield its outing from all corners. Oppressors are not used to dealing Pedagogy of the Oppressor 25 with dialogues where their power, privilege, and subjectivity is the main topicof conversation, and if any of them are used to it they still tend not to deal verypositively with the situation. Freire' s theory for transforming the oppressor calls for apedagogy that fully accounts for the differentness of the oppressor in socially discursivesettings.

Rather than theorizing and treating the oppressor as a universal being and ageneralized student, dialogical participants from oppressor groups must be situatedwithin, a theory for transforming the oppressor as the classroom is itself a political strongholdvital to the reproduction of dehumanization and oppressor privilege. Thus, as such, theclassroom must be seen as a political space where the transformation of the oppressor can occur through a process of radical love and revolutionary knowledge construction.Instead of rejecting scientific knowledge, as do too many postmodernists, Freire still seescritical and democratic possibilities for structural depictions of reality withinoppressive regimes.

He even suggests, once again to the chagrin of postmodernists, that "authority"is an acceptable condition of revolutionary pedagogy.

In this process [of dialogue], arguments based on "authority" are nolonger valid; in order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not againstit. Here, no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught (Freire, 1970/1993, p.61).

Given his belief that it is only the oppressed and their knowledge that canliberate the

oppressor, we can assume that the authority that hespeaks of is the moral and political

authority embodied by those of the oppressed who are pursuing humanizationfor all.

Furthermore, Freire (1970/1993) indicates that this knowledge is not simply an

6 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 26 anarchistic form of poststructuralism, but strategically and radically structural when he says,

The inhumanity of the oppressors and revolutionary humanism both make use of science. But science and technology at the service of the former are used to reduce the oppressed to the status of "things"; at the service of the latter, they are used to promote humanization. The oppressed must become Subjects of the latter process, however, lest they continue to be seen as mere objects of scientific interest (p. 114).

The oppressed must become the authors of a type of science that takes the problem of oppression as its central concern and moves humankind towards liberation (see Harding,

1991). Science that promotes humanization must transform the empirical knowledge of the oppressed into a structural understanding of their situation. Revolutionary leaders, whether in the community'or classroom, must move beyond rhetoric and shape an informed and critical discourse of the causes of oppressive circumstances through "the people's empirical knowledge of reality" (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 115). This more revolutionary form of scientific knowledge, and its associated wisdoms, would then stand as the conceptual basis of a critical curriculum for the transformation of the oppressor.

Yet, little transformation can occur within a classroom if the oppressor is still trapped within a mentality that sees knowledge associated with the oppressed as being distorted or full of blindnesses. Humanizing dialogue between the oppressed and the

oppressor cannot occur without the humility of the oppressor. Without humility, the

oppressor is doomed to remain in their dehumanizing and dehumanized state. For the Pedagogy of the Oppressor 27 oppressor to be committed to humanization, he/she must supportthe oppressed in their naming of the oppressor and the system of oppression.

Hence, dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name theworld and those who do not wish this namingbetween those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied them. Those who have been denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim this right and prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 69).

So, in classrooms>, oppressors typically argue with the oppressed, mostlyfor fear of being called out as "the oppressor," thus stifling critical dialogue. Rather thanaccepting their oppressor identity, their possessive investment in their own statuscreates communicative barriers and obstacles to solidarity. This behavior can even occur among thoseof the oppressor group who consider themselves to be "radicals."For example, oppressor

group members who focus more on the colonized mentality of theoppressed than on

their own colonizing mentality as well as that of their oppressor group lackthe humility

necessary for humanizing dialogue. Sure, it is true thathegemony operates in such a way

that many of the oppressed deserve scrutiny for being complicitous with theoppressive

system. However, the oppressors are primarily responsible foroppression and thus

deserve the greater scrutiny, particularly from those "scrutinizers" who are alsoof the

oppressor group.

Dialogue, as the encounter of those addressed to the common task of learningand acting, is broken if the parties (or one of them) lack humility. How can I dialogue if I always project ignorance onto others and never perceive my own? How can I

28 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 28

dialogue if I regard myself as a case apart from othersmere"its" in whom I cannot recognize other "I"s? (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 71)

Freire is speaking here about both the oppressed and the oppressor.And, certainly it is sometimes the oppressed who can lack humility. However, the moretypical and destructive scenario is for the oppressor to be the one who denies,dismisses, denigrates, and belittles the oppressed in dialogue. The oppressor will resistscrutiny of the

oppressor group by shifting the dialogueback to an examination of the oppressed group

so as to avoid being the object of study.

Additionally, the process of humanizing oppressors through dialoguerequires the

organization of pedagogical practices that counter their attempts to restoretheir

oppressive regime within the educational setting. As previouslymentioned, oppressors

are adept at ordering the world intoplaces for the sustainment of their false

consciousnesses. This includes the space of the classroom. Thecritical educator can

assume that those from oppressor groupswill not readily divest themselves of their views

of themselves and Others. Therefore, more assertive and strategic measuresmust be

taken when challenging the ideologies of oppressors inclassrooms. For many criticalists,

this goes against what they have been taught about the positivityof "open" dialogue. But

one must realize that the pedagogicalneed to empower the voices of the oppressed is not

at odds with, but correlated to the need to transform thevoices of the oppressor.

Dialogue is never truly open, and is certainly less open when the oppressorscontinue to Pedagogy of the Oppressor 29 perpetrate their dehumanization duringintercultural communication. Even Freire

(1970/1993) himself demonstrates his belief that dialogueshould not be an "anything goes" affair when he states:

...[T]he restraints imposed by the former oppressed ontheir oppressors, so that the latter cannot reassume their former position, do notconstitute oppression. An act is oppressive only when it preventspeople from being more fully human. Accordingly, these necessary restraints do not inthemselves signify that yesterday's oppressed have become today' s oppressors.Acts which prevent the restoration of the oppressive regime cannot be comparedwith those by which a few men and women deny the majority their right tobe human (p. 38-39).

Humanization requires a praxis that does not allow the oppressorsto perpetuate their

system of oppression, while at the same timeeffectively transforming their

consciousness. Pedagogical strategies that are meant to create a senseof dissonance for

the oppressor are crucial to his/her rebirth, and must be aconsidered and institutionally

supported mode of instruction because oppressors will attemptto avoid such disorienting

tactics. Plus, the use of a problem-posing education can createfor the oppressor a critical

consciousness for solidarity with the oppressed and agencyagainst the dehumanization

caused by the oppressor's own group. Problem-posingeducation consists of a "constant

unveiling of reality" that "strives for the emergence ofconsciousness and critical

intervention in reality" (Freire, 1970/1993, p. 62).

Freire's theory for transforming the oppressor must be morecentral to any

reading of his text, particularly in the relatively privilegedglobal spaces of U.S.

university classrooms. It is a difficult task to be reborn to theoppressed, and critical

306 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 30 pedagogy, as .a political and educational project, needs to do more work in this area.

Without a theory for transforming the oppressor, the critical pedagogist runs the risk of coddling the oppressive mentalities of students by treating them like the oppressed.

Another risk is that the critical pedagogist will simply chase off resistant oppressors, leaving them unchanged and still perpetrating their dehumanizing tendencies against the

oppressed. Since both the oppressed and the reborn of the oppressors have to deal with

the unchanged oppressor on an everyday basis, it is our moral and political obligation to

attempt to change the oppressor. The practice of this moral and politicalobligation is

especially crucial for the on-going rebirth of the transformed oppressor because he/she

needs to be accountable for the consequences manifested by their own cultural group.

Contrary to what some may believe, Freire also does not seem to believe in the dialogical

wallowing of postmodern relativism, where identities are slippery and hard to define or

name. When looked at from the view of his theory fortransforming the oppressor, he is

quite assertive in describing the depth of-change that is needed and the types of

pedagogical and dialogical strategies necessary to intervene in the dehumanizing

tendencies of the oppressor. His theory reminds us that a change of consciousness for

those of the oppressor group only comes through conflict, content, and possibility.

However, Freire' s theorization of the oppressor does have a major shortcoming

that must not be buried and silenced. His theory gives little if no guidance to the reader

as to how to decide when a person is the oppressed or the oppressor.Instead, he offers a 3i Pedagogy of the Oppressor 31

vague emphasis on the binary of"oppressed" and "oppressor" that seems to assumethat

the reader readily understands whom he isreferring to. Oftentimes, he refers to the

oppressed as "the people," an open-ended term thatcould allow just about anyone to

imagine themselves as an included member. My sense,though, is that Freire had a more

humanistic beliefs leads me to . specific and exclusive group in mind. His Marxist and

believe that "the people," and thus, "the oppressed,"translates into "the proletariat" while

"the oppressor" translates into "the bourgeoisie."However, Freire does not explicitly

make this translation, so it is difficult to determinewhether this is in fact what he had in

mind. It is curious to me that he used these ratherabstract and generalized terms since

Pedagogy of the Oppressed was shaped largely byhis work with the people of Northeast

Brazil, who are largely the ancestors of enslavedAfricans. Given that Freire was a white

man, it seems highly problematicthat he chose to reference class exclusivelywith little

or no mention of race. Moreover,his theory offers no framework for dealingwith the

intersecting oppressions of white supremacy, patriarchy,heterosexism, and capitalism

that exist in the real world. In other words, thereis little in Pedagogy of the Oppressed

that helps us deal with the dialogical tensions createdwhen a group, and thus its

members, is the oppressed relative to some groupsand the oppressor relative to Others.

For instance, working-class whites are oppressedby capitalism but are privileged by

white supremacy. Are they Freire's "oppressed" or are theythe "oppressor"? And, how

should we decide? In short, Freire's monolithic signifiersof "the oppressed" and "the

32 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 32 oppressor" need to be further theorized for their actual complexities. Without this further theorization, critical dialogical encounters that are intended to create solidarity will ultimately serve the divide and conquer interests of oppression because they will publicly silence Othered oppressions. What is needed is a theory of dialogue and solidarity that takes the best of Freire's theory for transforming the oppressor while accounting for the intersectionalities of oppressions. And, this theory must be more than a reactionary

"can' t everyone just get along" rhetoric or a postmodern "all oppressions are equal" abstractionism. The theory should be grounded in structural theories that promote democratic action against oppressive totalities and maintain the utopian sense of a humanized possibility (Giroux, 1992; McLaren, 1997).

Patricia Hill Collins' Black Feminist Thought provides such a theory. What

Freire's theory of transforming the oppressor lacks is what Collins' theory of

intersectionality within the matrix of domination adds, that is, a theory for deciding when

one is the oppressed and when one is the oppressor. Collins applies a moresociological

rubric, rooted in the identity specific realities of socially structured and hierarchical

oppression, that takes much of the postmodern choice factor out of the oppressed-

oppressor equation. After all, identities are, in reality, less about personal choice or

fashion than they are about socially structured relationships of power and signification.

Let's take a closer look at the theory of Collins so as to sympathetically critique and

renew Freire' s theory of transforming the oppressor.

33 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 33

Antithesis: Collins' Theory ofIntersectionality within Matrix ofDomination

the shifting nature of In Black Feminist Thought,Patricia Hill Collins theorizes oppressor-oppressed identity. LikeFreire, her work is also groundedin a radically

the immediate democratic quest for the end of oppression,full humanization fOr all, and

is broadened to necessity of building solidarity.Unlike Freire, however, her quest account for the multiplicityand complexity of oppression acrossvarious systems.

either the oppressor or Collins (2000) contends that theidentity of humans is not fixed as

with various Others oppressed because our identitiesmorph as we come into relation

the oppressor and in other across time and space.That is to say, in some contexts we are

contexts we are the oppressed.

and when one is the But, exactly how does one knowwhen one is the oppressed

remain within a oppressor? Although oppressor-oppressedidentities do shift, they still

hierarchical structure, or the matrixof domination, which creates asocial experience that

Given her is highly predictable acrossmultiple instantiations of time and space.

that the decision as emphasis on critical dialogue andalliance building, Collins suggests

of to whether one is theoppressed or oppressor should bebased upon the relationship

domination that is represented in thedialogue at hand.

Intersectionality refers to particular formsof intersecting oppressions,for example, intersections of race and gender, orof sexuality and nation. Intersectional paradigms remind us thatoppression cannot be reduced to one fundamental type, and that oppressions worktogether in producinginjustice. In

34 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 34

contrast, the matrix of domination refers to how theseintersecting oppressions are actually organized. Regardless of the particular intersectionsinvolved, structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal domains of power reappear across quite different forms of oppression (Collins, 2000, p. 18).

Collins implies that oppression is not relative, but is structured evenwhen speaking of intersections. On this more structural level, within- and between-groupoppression can in fact be weighed in terms of relative power and privilege. Althoughbeing "called out" as

an oppressor may cause tension and anger amongthose who are members of what are

typically seen as historically oppressed groups, Collins contendsthat ignoring the

realities of oppression in favor of essentialist unity ultimately thwartsdemocracy. In

Freire's theory, the oppressor defines "human" in his/her ownimage. In Collins' theory,

the oppressor might not be a white Western male, and cannotcontrol the definition of

"human." However, the oppressor may be able to somewhatcontrol what counts as

proper "Black," "feminist," or "proletariat"subjectivity. For example, she argues that

the Black struggle against white supremacy is no reason forBlacks, whether men or

women, to be silent about the oppressionBlack women experience due to Black

patriarchy (Collins, 2000). In this example, Black men are cast ashaving structural

advantages over Black women, even though they are oppressedvis-a-vis white

supremacy. Collins (2000) seems to bequite aware of the difficulties of radical

dialogues between groups such as Black men and Black women whenshe says,

By advocating, refining, and disseminating Black feministthought, individuals from other groups who are engaged in similar social justiceprojectsBlack men, 35 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 35

African women, White men, Latinas, White women,and members of other U.S. racial/ethnic groups, for examplecan identify pointsof connection that further social justice projects. Very often, however,engaging in the type of coalition envisioned here requires that individuals become"traitors" to the privileges that their race, class, gender, sexuality, or citizenshipstatus provide them (p. 37).

In other words, Black men need to work withBlack women in order to divestthemselves of Black patriarchal systems, that is, they need tobecome traitors to Black patriarchy.

Likewise, Latinas need to work with Black andindigenous women to divest themselves of their relative color privilege. And, U.S. Black womenmust work with Third World

Black women in order to divest themselves oftheir first world privilege. Overall, one who is radically democratic, or as Cornel West says, a"radical democrat" (1999), must show ideological consistency by accepting the oppressoridentity when one is

representing a state of being with more structural powerthat the Others in the dialogue.

Collins does see larger totalities at work, but shealso sees multiple yet interconnected

layers in the hierarchy, or the matrix of domination,and is asking us to take

responsibility for our structural situation within it, evenif we are not located on the very

top.

This framework should also shape the natureof the dialogical process of

transforming the oppressor. For example, white women, as a group,have more structural

power than Black women do.Collins notes how white women employstructural

advantage over Black women in terms of economic status,racial privilege, cultural

capital, and sexual power. Blinded by the epistemologicaldistortion of their relative 36 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 36 oppressor status, white women, as a group, remain consistentlyoblivious to how constructions of white female beauty place heterosexual Black women at a disadvantage

(see Frankenberg, 1994; Sleeter, 1996).

In this context of what is perceived as widespread rejection by Black men, often in favor of White women, African-American women's relationships with Whites take on a certain intensity. On the one hand, antagonism can characterize relationships between Black and White women, especially those who appear blissfully unaware of the sexual politics that privileges White skin...On the other hand, given the culpability of White men in creating and maintaining these sexual politics, Black women remain reluctant to love White men. Constrained by social norms that deem us unworthy of White men and norms of Blackcivil society that identify Black women who cross the color line as traitors to the race, many Black women remain alone (Collins, 2000, p. 162).

This and other antagonisms between Black and white women, born out of differing material conditions and epistemological systems, crystallize as cultural and ideological borders in critical dialogues. White women, as the relative oppressor, bear the greater

responsibility to listen to and be transformed by the collective experiences and

philosophies of Black women. Iri Freirean terms, white women, as the oppressor,

predictably lack humility, more often than not, when dialoguing with Black women and

other women of color. The critical learning of such a dialogical encounter should

specifically focus on the relationship between white women and Black women while

avoiding abstractions that turn attention away from the personal and group

responsibilities of white women. Sure, white supremacy, patriarchy, and even capitalism Pedagogy of the Oppressor 37 can be named asdetermining totalities, but this does not excuse white womenfrom acting as agents of these totalities.

In another example offered by Collins, there arealso diverse circumstances of power among Black womensince, of course, no group is monolithic.,As opposed to the context of dialogues between white womenand Black women, the oppressed-oppressor dynamic shifts when the dialogue for seekingsolidarity is among Black women. Since middle-class Black women have social power overworking-class Black women, middle-

class Black women become the oppressor whenthey are in dialogue with working-class

Black women. In Collins' framework, it is up tomiddle-class Black women, in this

scenario, to listen to and learn from the experiencesand knowledge of working-class

Black women. The dialogue should focus onthe specific ways in which middle-class

Black women oppress working-class Black women.Middle-class Black women should

reflect upon and critique their ways of knowing that arecomplicitous with the

disempowerment of working-class Black women.

Applying Collins' framework to my concerns about raceand class issues between

whites and people of color, I offer the followingexample. Whites, even white Marxists,

will exploit the tensions within groups of color to shieldthemselves from a self-

examination of their own oppressive tendencies. Considerthe tension between middle-

and working-class Blacks. I would say, with the helpof Collins, that Black resistance

against white supremacy, although tremendously vital and necessary,is no excuse for the 38 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 38

Black middle class to define "Blackness" in a way that hidestheir structural power/privilege over the Black working class. Economic oppressionis very salient in this particular dialogical relationship (between middle- andworking-class Blacks), but its specificities are imbedded primarily in middle-class Black's fears of notappearing united against white supremacy. So, in this dialogical relationship, maybeit is important to foreground class, while remembering that it is white supremacy thatprovides that larger container. Meanwhile, it is also impoitant that white Marxists do notmisuse this dialogue among the Black community to distance themselvesfrom their own complicity

in white supremacy, after all, it is white supremacy that framesthe hesitancy of airing

their "dirty laundry" of internal class oppression. Too many whiteleftists, upon hearing

this debate among Blacks, would be quick to say, "See, even theythink it's class and not

race." Of course, it's always more than one, but the question iswhich should be

foregrounded and when. As Collins suggests, itdepends on the specificities of the

dialogical participants and the specificities of their larger matrixof domination.

Synthesis: Pedagogy of the Oppressor

Both Freire and Collins believe that the knowledge necessaryfor liberating

oppressed-oppressor relationships needs to come from the oppressed asthey speak truth

to power. Thus, both retain a sense of the reality ofhierarchical power in their dialogical

theories. But, as we have seen, the two differ when it comes todefining "the oppressed."

39 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 39

Freire's system is a binary of oppressorand oppressed. Collins' system isintersectional, multi-tiered, and dialogically contextual.Still other differences exist intheir plans for transforming the oppressor. Whereas Freireoutlines the ethical and pedagogical concerns for the rebirth of the oppressor,Collins instead devotes much moreof her text to the very specific and concretehistorical and cultural details of a varietyof oppressor- oppressed relationships. Thus, Freireprovides a general theory to transferfrom context

actual critical dialogue to context. Conversely,Collins shows us what the content of an might look like, and, in effect, shedemonstrates just how importantthose contextual details are for dealing with real worldidentities in their particularoppressor-oppressed

specificities. For Collins, the nuances of thesociocultural and sociohistoricalnarratives

are critical to transformation.One might say that for Collins "thedevil is in the details."

In contrast, Freire pays less attention tothe details of the dialogue andfocuses more on

the overall development of the moral andpolitical commitment of the oppressor.His

theory can help us evaluate the generaldynamics of a critical dialoguebetween

oppressed and oppressor, thus proving thephrase "there's nothing moreuseful than a

good theory."

Through a synthesis of Freire and Collins,I propose a pedagogy of the oppressor

that seeks to deal directly with the problemof the oppressor's mentality,transformed or

not, within the doing of criticalpedagogy. Borrowing from Freire, apedagogy of the

oppressor begins with the assumptionthat the oppressor identity is adifferent kind of 40 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 40

"problem" than that of the oppressed. The consciousness of the oppressor has been shaped by his/her privileged experience in a system of oppression. They aremembers of a group that creates the social order in their ownimage, to the extent that that is possible.

Their relative power and privilege over the oppressed, and their subsequentdenial and perpetration of this power, imposes psychological and material violence uponthe oppressed. The relative oppressor will resist any challenges to their misshapenview of themselves and the world, and this reactionary behavior will be most evidentin a classroom where truth truly is spoken to power. A pedagogy of the oppressor mustbe prepared for the oppressor to redirect criticism by blaming the oppressedfor their lesser

status and power, as the oppressor will surely project their ownself-loathing onto the

oppressed. Oppressors will also try to mythologize the current realitythrough twisted

and distorted narratives that they have used, usually with predictable"success," to divert

the critical gaze in classrooms and dialogues away from themselvesand back upon the

oppressed. A pedagogy of the oppressor must then take the lessons of Collins toheart. It

is not enough to have the general guidelines of a theory for transforming the oppressor; a

critical educator also needs to know the specific, detailed critiques of theparticular

oppressor-oppressed dialogue at hand. Elizabeth Ellsworth (1989) makes agood point

when she says,

...[C]ritical pedagogues consistently answer the question of "empowerment for what?" in ahistorical and depoliticized abstractions.These include empowerment for "human betterment," for expanding "the range of possible social identities

41 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 41

people may become," and "making one' s self present as partof a moral and political project that links production of meaning to thepossibility for human agency, democratic community, andtransformative social action." As a result, student empowerment haS been defined in the broadestpossible humanist terms, and becomes a "capacity to act effectively" in a waythat fails to challenge any identifiable social or political position, institution, or group(p. 307).

The critical educator must be ideologically,conceptually, and rhetorically astute about the specificities of social identities if she/heis to create conditions for the rebirth ofthe oppressor. To avoid oppressiveabstractions, a pedagogy of the oppressor sees nogood substitute for a depth of critical multicultural content.

Looking more closely at Collins, her work contributes to apedagogy of the oppressor both the structure andcomplexity necessary to deal with multiple systemsof

oppressed-oppressor relationships in the classroom. She at onceembraces the

postmodern realm of varied oppressionS and intersections,but at the same time places

them within the still existing modern world of veryreal social hierarchies and material

and psychological consequences. Collins' theoryof intersectionality within the matrix of

domination is a complex model for building solidaritythat does not steer away from the

harder questions about relative privilege and power among groupsthat are not the elite,

but intermediate hegemons. A pedagogy of the oppressoris able to speak to and

challenge the multiple layers of oppression withoutmerely shifting wildly and

haphazardly from one "ism" to another, landing whereverthe relative oppressors feel

most comfortable. In terms of a politicalphilosophy, Collins grounds her theorywithin

42 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 42 the real struggles of building democracy rather than relying uponabstractions of relationships, which only seem to promote hegemony and/or separatism. She seems to resist theorizing the larger framework of domination and oppression separatefrom the specificities of the dialogical relation; different totalities take center stage as thesocial identities of the oppressor-oppressed relation change. Collins' theory appears toreject any assertion of totality that does not also name the group-to-grouprelationship that is being worked upon. Instead, her theory posits humans as sociallyidentifiable agents standing completely within a hierarchical system. And, the only way they candismantle the system, to achieve full humanity in Freirean terms, is to.collapse it like anaccordion, not just from the bottom up, but also through the top-downhumility and "traitor" agency of the multiple oppressors. Therefore, a pedagogy of the oppressor takes as acentral

political philosophy that social transformation cannot occur only throughbottom up

revolutionary strategies. The oppressors, all of the oppressor throughout allof the social

strata, need to account for and rebel against their oppressor identity.

A pedagogy of the oppressor, though, does take note that it is certainlydifferent to be an

oppressor at the top of the global matrix of dominationthan towards the bottom.

However, if full humanization is the goal, all who are in a relative oppressorposition

must take responsibility for their own structural advantage andintermediate hegemonic

location. Oppression from above is little excuse for oppressing those below.Ideological

consistency, steeped in a radical democratic vision, is key to a pedagogy of the oppressor. Pedagogy of the Oppressor 43

The collapsing of the matrix of domination canonly come through each sociallylocated group, each layer of the system,dealing positively not just with their ownoppression, but with how they oppress the Others whoseheads and hearts they stand on in thehierarchy of humanity. Only through this tidal waveof radical love, where those who are oppressed from above find the courage andhumility to own their oppressor statusthat they hold over those situated below and comeinto communion and solidarity withthe relatively oppressed, can true social transformationtake place. A pedagogy of the oppressor is based more on theradicalization of networked and ranked group-to-group

relations than it is on the theoretically, and thus,politically isolated and isolating models

of group self-determination that are currently soprevalent. Models of self-determination

may be contingently importantfor historically oppressed groups,however, groups do not

exist within social vacuums, nor do theyexist within pure social binaries. Bydealing

with the fuller complexity of oppression,humankind stands a better chance ofachieving

Freire's utopian dream of a humanizing world.

44 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 44

References

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought (Second Edition). New York and London: Rout ledge.

Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297- 324.

Frankenberg, R. (1994). Whiteness and Americanness: Examining constructions of race, culture, and nation in white women's life narratives. In S. Gregory & R. Sanjeck (Eds.), Race (pp. 62-77). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed.) (M. B. Ramos, Trans.).New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. (Original work published in 1970)

Garvey, J., & Ignatiev, N. (1997). Toward a new abolitionism: A race traitor manifesto. In M. Hill (Ed.), Whiteness: A critical reader (pp. 346-349). New York: New York University Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York and London: Routledge.

Giroux, H. (1997). White squall: Resistance and the pedagogy of whiteness. Cultural Studies, 11(3), 376-389.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women'slives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jacobson, M. (1998). Whiteness of a different color. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). I know why this doesn't feel empowering: A critical race analysis of critical pedagogy. In P. Freire (Ed.), Mentoring the mentor: A critical dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp. 127-142). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

45 Pedagogy of the Oppressor 45

Leonardo, Z. (2000). Betwixt and between: Anintroduction to the politics of identity. In C. Tejeda, C. Martinez, & Z. Leonardo(Eds.), Charting new terrains of Chicana(o)/Latina(o) education (pp. 107-129).Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.

Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investmentin whiteness: How white peopleprofit from identity politics. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

McIntosh, P. (1997). White privilege and maleprivilege. In R. Delgado & J.Stefancic (Eds.), Critical white studies: Lookingbehind the mirror (pp. 291-299). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McIntyre, A. (1997). Constructing an imageof a white teacher. Teachers College Record, 98(4), 653-681.

McLaren, P. (1997). Critical pedagogy andpredatory culture: Oppositionalpolitics in a postmodern era. New York and London: Routledge.

Roediger, D. (1999). Wages of whiteness:Race and the making of the American working class (Revised Edition). London andNew York: Verso.

Sleeter, C. (1996). Power and privilege in whitemiddle-class feminist discussions of gender and education. In C. Sleeter, Multiculturaleducation as social activism (pp. 199-215). Albany: State Universityof New York Press.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). "Why are all the Blackkids sitting together in the cafeteria'?"and other conversations about race. New York:BasicBooks.

West, C. (1999). The making of an Americanradical democrat. In C. West (Ed.),The Cornel West Reader (pp. 3-18). New York:Basic Civitas Books.

46 "Lar U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) National Library of Education (NLE) ERIC Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: Title: peoto,909 Ofpassrbik-ed Was Werceli theol Trett454444,1 Povcio rolver.M7 Author(s): gi.c101 Litc A I Lev Corporate Source: Publicati n Date:

Li-Z/0 '-1 II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom of the page. The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND .DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN BEEN GRANTED BY FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY HAS. BEEN GRANTED BY \e Sad S16`6)

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1 2A 2B

Level 1 Level 2A Level 2B

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting Check here for Level 2A release, permitting Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other reproduction and dissemination In microffthe and in reproduction and dissemination in microfldie only ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper electronic media for ERIC archival collection cuPY. subsa1bers only

Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Sign Plinted=tiedOr Telephony please ?-7 7 iPswo /Mexico) ( b 4 "AVrrP 48.0Yi144,e/14 ok"111 `AIM Pt5g101 I i31-1T-3 (over) III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 1129 SHRIVER LAB COLLEGE PARK, MD 20742-5701 ATTN: ACQUISITIONS

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being contributed) to:

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility 4483-A Forbes Boulevard Lanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone: 301-552-4200 Toll Free: 800-799-3742 FAX:, 301-5524700 e-mail: [email protected] WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2000)